IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Peedikayullaparambath Chandramathi D/o Kunhikanaran – Appellant
Versus
P.P. Raveendran S/o Kunhikanaran – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 508 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 10 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 83 - Property - Decree of prohibitory injunction - Possession and ownership over property - Appellants challenged verdict of Munsiff Court granting decree of prohibitory injunction - Whether two courts below wrongly decreed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction – No evidence forthcoming to see so called oral lease as against recitals in Ext.A1. (Para 23)
Finding of the Court: Even though amendments were carried out in plaints and written statements, after incorporating amendments, amended copies of plaints and written statements were not seen filed and same make it difficult for appellate courts to read plaints and written statements inclusive of amendments legibly in continuity - It is need of hour to direct subordinate civil courts in State of Kerala to ensure filing of amended plaints and written statements after incorporating amendments raising new contentions by parties, without fail - All subordinate civil courts are hereby directed to post respective cases, for filing amended plaints and written statements, after incorporating amendments and to ensure that amended plaints and written statements are there in case records for appraisal of trial courts as well as appellate courts, so as to look into pleadings with certainty and continuity - Decree and judgment of trial court and confirmed by appellate court shall stand modified.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendants in OS No. 243/2014 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Nadapuram, where the defendants suffered decree and judgment dated 10.06.2019 at the hands of the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit. Though, the appellants herein challenged the verdict of the Munsiff Court granting decree of prohibitory injunction acting on Ext.C4 plan, the learned Sub Judge, Vadakara, also dismissed the appeal as per judgment dated 27.02.2021 in AS No. 17/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. This appeal was admitted by my predecessor on raising the following questions of law:
(2) Whether the two court below ascertained the factum of possession on the date of suit without examining the Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor?
(3) Whether the two courts below granted a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of an area of 5 acres and 14 cents, particularly, when the plaint schedule description and the plan has not become part of the decree?
4. I shall refer the parties as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’ for convenience.
5. The facts of the case: The suit is one filed for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property, where the plaintiff asserted title and possession on the strength of a gift deed No. 18/1970. Subsequently the plaint was amended, limiting the extent of land to 5.14 acres in tune with second commission report and plan. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 7 acre 42 cents originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the defendants, Kunhikanaran. While Kunhikanaran was in possession and enjoyment of the same, Kunhikanaran executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted the gift deed and took delivery of the same. Thereafter, he made improvements in the property. Out of the plaint schedule property he had exchanged 2 Acre 4 ½ cents to one Nanu and sold an extent of 8.892 Ares to one Pradeepan. Thus the remaining extent of 5 Acre 14 Cents absolutely belonged to him and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants have no right over the plaint schedule property and there exists proper demarcating boundaries in between the plaint schedule properties and other properties. At the time of execution of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, his father had title over property on the eastern and northern sides of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, father executed a registered Will No. 15/1979 dated 07.03.1979 regarding those properties. Thereby property having an extent of 8 Acres was bequeathed to the defendants. Thereafter the defendants partitioned the said property among themselves as per partition Karar No. 2149/1991 of SRO, Nadapuram. When the plaintiff, who permanently settled in Koothuparamba about 25 KM away from the plaint schedule property, reached the plaint schedule property on 03.12.2014, defendants 1, 4 and 5 raised dispute and claimed right over certain portions of the plaint schedule property and objected the plaintiff from taking the usufructs. It was at this juncture, this Suit was filed.
6. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that in the year 1954, Kunhikanaran obtained title to properties including the plaint schedule property. But the legality of the gift deed relied on by the plaintiff was seriously disputed. Even though the defendants admitted that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to their father and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same, it was contended that in 1954, thei
Bhaskaran vs. Shobha and Others
SupremeToday
Order XXVI Rule 10 of CPC provides procedure of Commissioner.
Proper identification of properties based on respective title deeds supported by old survey plan and new survey plan is necessary to grant reliefs sought in a suit for injunction and counter claim fo....
Point of Law : Default or carelessness of the parties does not absolve the Trial Court of its obligation to satisfy that the property ordered to be recovered is identifiable.
The courts erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit without addressing critical issues of property title and possession, validating his claim for a declaratory relief against unauthorized deeds.
Perpetual injunction cannot be granted without clear identification of disputed property.
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
The burden of proof to establish title and possession lies with the plaintiff, and failure to meet this burden results in dismissal of the claim.
Revenue records do not confer title or prove possession against commissioner report and admissions showing physical division by road and fencing; injunction suit maintainable on possession without de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession follows title, and in cases of vacant property, the person able to establish title is considered to be in possession. The court....
The reliance on unsubstantiated resurvey records for ownership disputes violates evidentiary standards, necessitating proper validation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.